Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Mileage Run Deals > Mileage Run Discussion
Reload this Page >

[PREM FARE GONE] RGN First class comes back again!!!!

[PREM FARE GONE] RGN First class comes back again!!!!

    Hide Wikipost
Old Oct 27, 14, 3:48 pm   -   Wikipost
Please read: This is a community-maintained wiki post containing the most important information from this thread. You may edit the Wiki once you have been on FT for 90 days and have made 90 posts.
 
Last edit by: fti
Wiki Link
People, please edit/use the wiki so same questions are not always asked.

The current CTA decision on the Yangon deal is only for tickets canceled by SWISS Airlines for the seven merged complaints/companions and tickets canceled by Jet Airways for one complainant and companions
- It's not about other carriers because each carrier submits different tariffs.
- If you are not one of the complainants or their companions above who were mentioned in the respective cases, you need to submit a case yourself for hearing.
- There's currently one person who is on Iberia for CTA decision, one can either wait for results or submit a complaint to CTA.

Result of the current case for LX in brief is:
- CTA found 5(F) in the tariff used to be unclear for canceling tickets on erroneously quoted fares.
- 5(F) is unjust and unreasonable and must be revised or taken down by July 9, 2013 (or SWISS can appeal by then)
- SWISS did not use its tariff correctly to cancel the tickets.
- SWISS must compensate one complainant's First Class ticket and any related expenses by July 18, 2013 provided with evidence.
- SWISS must transport other complainants (and their companions) in the original price charged with same booking class and routing by June 18, 2014.

Result of the current case for 9W in brief is:
- Tariff on file had no clauses for "erroneous fares" and was updated subsequently, which means it is not relevant to this event
- Therefore, 9W is to reinstate the tickets with a 1-year validity for transport between the same points and the same booking class.


CTA official news can be read here for general overview of the case.

Actual CTA case review can be found here for reference should you wish to file a complaint.

If you have a similar case that's with SWISS, you need to file with CTA to get a result through informal process first before it gets to formal process. The entire procedure can take up to 3 months for each and the result may not be same cause it's case-by-base and the reviewer of the case can be different.

To file an informal complaint with CTA, see here. Click through all of the pages to get to the online form for the informal complaint. Or click here.

To file a formal complaint after informal complaint has been closed, see here. Continue on to the next page to see the address or email address for the formal complaint.

The July 17th and 18th responses from LX can be found here:
Other Letters:


Feel free to add dates, flights, etc., in order to plan DOs, etc.

Aug 4: SFO-ICN (UA893)
Jason8612

Aug 5: ICN-SFO (UA892)
Jason8612

Aug 7: SFO-ICN (UA893)
Jason8612

Aug 11: ICN-NRT-ORD (UA78, UA882)
Jason8612

Aug 14: BOS-IAD-NRT-ICN (UA285, UA803, UA79)
Deltspygt

Aug 19: ICN-NRT-IAD-BOS (UA78, UA804, UA352)
Deltspygt

Oct 1: UA433-UA893
JeredF +1

Oct 8: UA892-UA242
JeredF +1

Oct 9: BOS-SFO-ICN (UA433, UA893)
BigJC

Oct 13: ICN-NRT-ORD-BOS (UA78, UA882, UA744)
BigJC

Oct 21: BOS-SFO UA433 to SFO-ICN UA893
Sterndogg +1
flyerdude88 (SFO - ICN portion only)

Oct 23: ICN - SFO UA 892
flyerdude88

Oct 27: ICN-SFO UA892 to SFO-BOS UA286
Sterndogg +1

Nov 05: BOS-ORD UA521, ORD-NRT UA881
kokonutz, I012609, BingoSF +1

Nov 11: ICN-SFO UA892, SFO-IAD UA727
kokonutz, I012609, BingoSF +1

Nov 26: BOS-SFO UA433, SFO-NRT UA837, NRT-ICN UA79
thepla

Nov 27: BOS-ORD-NRT-ICN (UA501, UA881, UA196)
BigJC+1

Nov 29: Planning 2 days in TPE, been to ICN
thepla

Dec 1: ICN-SFO UA892, SFO-ORD UA698, ORD-BOS UA961
thepla

Dec 1: ICN-NRT-IAD-BOS (UA78, UA804, UA822)
BigJC+1

Dec 15: BOS-SFO UA433, SFO-ICN UA893
songzm

Dec 25: BOS-IAD UA285, IAD-NRT UA803, NRT-ICN UA79
Dinoscool3 +2

Dec 30: ICN-SFO UA892, SFO-BOS UA444
songzm

Dec 31: ICN-SFO UA892, SFO-BOS UA770
Dinoscool3 +2

Jan 11: BOS-SFO UA1523, Jan 12: SFO-ICN UA893
margarita girl

Jan 12: BOS-SFO UA433, SFO-ICN UA893
Zebranz

14 Jan: BOS-SFO UA433 to SFO-ICN UA893
ORDOGG

19 Jan: ICN-SFO UA892 to SFO-ORD UA698 to ORD-BOS UA961
ORDOGG

Jan 22: ICN-SFO UA892 SFO-BOS UA500
margarita girl

Feb 5: ICN-SFO UA892 SFO-BOS UA242
Zebranz



CMB-DFW EY F

FARE IS GONE

FARE RULES (thanks to SQ421)
FRTLK Fare Rules (RT)
FOWLK Fare Rules (OW)

WHEN ARE YOU FLYING?
Feel free to add any additional cities you're leaving from!
Please slot yourselves in!!!

ex-CMB
Feb

Mar
8 - Darmajaya
12 - Thaidai
22 - Deadinabsentia

Apr
21 - SQ421, penegal, jozdemir
26 - tahsir21

May
28 - Upperdeck744
29 - bonsaisai (positioning flights SIN-CMB, DFW-ORD)

Jun
12 - lelee

Jul
7 - HansGolden +6
8 - arcticbull + 1
11 - bonsaisai's friend (positioning flights: SIN-CMB, DFW-MCI)
25 - Tycosiao
30 - bonsaisai's friend (positioning flights: MCI-DFW, CMB-SIN)

Aug
17 - DC777Fan
26 - Yi Yang
31 - dcas

Sep

Oct

Nov
8 - harryhv
29 - stephem+4

Dec
6 - roastpuff and (soon) Mrs. roastpuff , JFKEZE (UL Code-share)
7 - DWFI
10 - jlisi984 + dad (CMB-AUH-DFW)
21 - bonsaisai (positioning flights SIN-CMB, DFW-ORD)

ex-AUH
Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr
27 - RICHKLHS

May


Jun
29 - yerffej201

Jul
9 - HansGolden +6
27 - Tycosiao

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov
30 - stephem+4 (to JFK)

Dec
7 - JFKEZE, DWFI [EY161 nonstop]
9 - roastpuff and (soon) Mrs. Roastpuff

ex-DFW
Jan

Feb

Mar
14 - Thaidai
15 - zainman +1

Apr
25 - SQ421, penegal, jozdemir

May

Jun

Jul

Aug
22 - arcticbull + 1

Sep
22 - bonsaisai (positioning flights ORD-DFW, CMB-SIN)


Oct

Nov
19 - harryhv->Paris

Dec
19 - Yi Yang, jona970318
24 - DWFI (EY160 nonstop)
26 - HansGolden +6 (CDG), LwoodY2K (AUH)
Print Wikipost

Reply

Old Feb 14, 14, 8:03 am
  #9871  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: SIN
Programs: QR Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 198
Originally Posted by Deltahater View Post
If possible, get something in writing. Not sure if you can tape conversations in AUH and use them in court in the USA, but food for thought.

If you have not already, file a DOT complaint ASAP. Your arguments are valid and logical and EY is apparently hoping they can exhaust people and get away with changing fare rules.

Thanks for the post
I was planning on using the email which I received from Etihad that explicitly stated that no changes are involved unless difference in fare is paid. In fact, the call center agent also mentioned that I should have received communication that no changes are allowed, so it has to be recorded in the PNR somewhere.

I will file a DOT complaint as soon as I arrive in the US, assuming the CDG-DFW flight doesn't screw up. Not sure if AA can check me in if my flight coupon is marked "NOGO".
james84 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 14, 8:26 am
  #9872  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Body in Downtown YYZ, heart and mind elsewhere
Programs: UA 50K, refugee from AC E50K.
Posts: 4,925
Originally Posted by cruisr View Post
Any guesses from our lawyers out there how long this can continue to go on for? is there ever a time when a court can say enough is enough, go away!

which court is the highest they can appeal to? if they get denied by them can they appeal an appeal decision. I'm pretty sure once the US Supreme Court rules you can't appeal it or am I mistaken. Not sure if it's the same deal in Canada.
Hello all. Disclaimers first:

1) I am not a lawyer.
2) I do not have a Swiss fare so I am not part of the legal action.
3) I have a deep personal interest in how Canada works the way it does. So over the years I've tried to learn more about the governance of the nation. I don't consider myself an expert on this any more than I consider myself an expert on methods to accrue miles. I simply know more about this stuff than an average person does.
4) I have some friends who did purchase the fare. One of them emailed me last night to get my opinion on the pdf letter from Davis. He then suggested I post here to add to the general discussion.

So that said ... A Stay is basically a pause in legal proceedings. So Davis (a large Canadian law firm) is apparently now acting on behalf of Swiss. They are asking for a pause in the legal proceedings.

Section 1(A) just regurgitates why a Stay is permissible.

Sections 1(B) and (C) are clear. It’s very worth noting though that the Federal Court of Appeal has denied Swiss leave to appeal. More on that later.

Section 1(D) is interesting. To understand the role of Governor-in-Council, you need to understand the governance of Canada and specifically some provisions of the Constitution Act and related Acts that came before.

Canada is a constitutional monarchy. So the Crown (Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II) is the head of state. (This is an important distinction from say, the American way where the President is head of state. Here, our Prime Minister is merely head of government, but he technically reports to Her Majesty who is head of state.) At the pleasure of Her Majesty, a government may be formed. The Governor General of Canada (David Johnston) is the Crown’s direct representative in Canada and is tasked with the day-to-day job of running the country and making sure that only important stuff is filtered up to Her Majesty. Direction / wisdom on certain issues will be sought from the Crown as required.

In order to help decide which issues are important (and need Crown input), the GG appoints (for life!) learned persons to the Privy Council. In theory, a member of the Privy Council - specifically one who commands the confidence of the House of Commons - is selected to be the Prime Minister. The PM then requests the GG to appoint select individuals to a special sub-committee of the Privy Council. This special sub-committee is known as Cabinet. Cabinet Ministers are Members of Parliament who carry special duties (& privileges) such as being the head of Foreign Affairs, or Finance Minister etc. In theory, the Crown and the GG will only take direction from this particular group. So Cabinet is also technically known as the Queen-in-Council or more commonly the Governor-in-Council.

The “in-Council” bit is important because this is where an Order-in-Council comes from. Laws in Canada are created first from Bills which need to move through debate in Parliament (various readings in the House) then to the Senate for “sober second thought” then finally to the Crown for Royal Assent. The Crown however, retains ultimate power in Canada. So the Crown can simply pass an Order-in-Council and something can come into being (from a judicial / legislative perspective) without having to go through the long route of passing something into law. Theoretically the Governor-in-Council will draft an Order-in-Council in front of the Crown, then read it out loud. The Queen will simply say “Approved” and the Order comes into immediate effect.

So an Order-in-Council is basically a quick & dirty way of bringing something into effect without having to rewrite laws. For example, the various prostitution laws were recently found un-Constitutional (i.e. illegal) by the Supreme Court. The Government could have sought an Order-in-Council that would essentially still leave prostitution illegal, while keeping an illegal law still embedded in the Criminal Code. Technically possible, but clearly not the best course of action.

So what’s happened in this case is that Swiss has petitioned the Governor-in-Council, to pretty please draft an Order-in-Council that will essentially let Swiss break the law, without actually having to re-write the laws of Canada.

Now, presumably the Federal Court has heard arguments from Swiss and from peeps like you. The Federal Court presumably told Swiss thanks for coming out, now go away and have a nice life.

Swiss applied for leave (permission) to appeal that decision. As Section 1(C) notes, the Federal Court of Appeal told Swiss thanks for coming out, now go away and have a nice life.

So that’s it. There are no more court arguments for Swiss and they are obligated to uphold whatever decision was initially made by the Federal Court. But, there is the possibility that they could get an Order-in-Council. Which is clearly what they’re hoping to do.

But an Order-in-Council is something to be used sparingly. It's a very special device which really should not be used at will.

An interesting wrinkle here is that there is no timeline associated with requesting an Order-in-Council. Typically it’s something so important and of national significance that it needs to be dealt with fairly quickly. Canadian passports for example are only made available to Canadian citizens. But when the US hostages were taken in Iran, then Prime Minister Joe Clark did a behind the scenes Order-in-Council that permitted issuing Canadian passports to those US citizens who Ambassador Ken Taylor got out with help from the CIA.

Clearly, the Swiss thing is not in the same league as rescuing hostages. So what may happen is that the Governor-in-Council may sit on this and do absolutely nothing. And then Parliament will be dissolved, an election called and a new Cabinet selected and sworn in. At which point in time I suspect Swiss will make another petition to the new Governor-in-Council.

From the perspective of Swiss, this would make sense because it would allow them infinite delays. I would, in a way, be surprised if the Governor-in-Council responds to the Swiss request because the matter is so trivial. If they respond, they set the precedent that any entity can seek an Order-in-Council. This is already true (anyone can seek an Order), but it’s a gross abuse of the executive function of Cabinet by trying to bog them down in such an inconsequential matter. The Swiss application deserves to be ignored by the Governor-in-Council.

But that’s the way of large corporations. Theoretically what this might do is clarify when an Order can be sought, but it’s awful hard to write something like that into law plus it probably requires an amendment to the Constitution which just ain’t gonna happen.

Practically what will most likely happen - eventually the CTA will stop granting Stays, at which point Swiss will accuse the CTA of not obeying their own rules (“pending the disposition of a petition to the Governor in Council”) and some weird legal stuff will happen and eventually Swiss will be forced to honour the fares. By this time though, many people will have moved, died or just plain forgotten about the fare.

Hope this helps. If anyone out there is truly an expert, please feel free to correct any mistakes I may have made!
RCyyz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 14, 8:35 am
  #9873  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Penang, Malaysia
Programs: OZ *G, HHonors Gold, Aclub Plat
Posts: 917
Wow. Awesome analysis. Thanks for the write up!

Hoping CTA will finally say "no more stays"
calvinoeh is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 14, 8:37 am
  #9874  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Programs: AA Plat, Hyatt Diamond
Posts: 386
Originally Posted by SanDiego1K View Post
I assume that the 80 names are a total of all who have filed? I was part of the group who received LET-C-A-3-2014 dated January 22, 2014. I have received nothing today.
You're on the list of 80 people attached to yesterday's letter.
palefire is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 14, 8:43 am
  #9875  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: 10^7 mm from Ȱ
Programs: Hyatt D/HHonors D/ SPG P/ Marriott P/ IHG P/ UA 1K/ AA EXP/ DL D
Posts: 1,943
Originally Posted by RCyyz View Post
Practically what will most likely happen - eventually the CTA will stop granting Stays, at which point Swiss will accuse the CTA of not obeying their own rules (“pending the disposition of a petition to the Governor in Council”) and some weird legal stuff will happen and eventually Swiss will be forced to honour the fares. By this time though, many people will have moved, died or just plain forgotten about the fare.
Thanks a lot for the insights, truly appreciate it.

Question: what's the repercussion if CTA finally decides not to grant Stays? I know LX will make a big noise about it, but other than that, what will happen next?
lewende is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 14, 9:10 am
  #9876  
2019 FlyerTalk Awards
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: SAT
Programs: AA PLT, BA Gold, TK Gold, Hyatt Gold, Hilton Gold, Gold SPG, AS 75K, QR PLT
Posts: 5,759
Originally Posted by RCyyz View Post
Hello all. Disclaimers first:



Hope this helps. If anyone out there is truly an expert, please feel free to correct any mistakes I may have made!
Very insightful. Thank you very much.

So in essence, because an order-in-council is so special and rarely used, LX can attempt to drag this out for the next 50 years?
Deltahater is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 14, 9:47 am
  #9877  
Moderator, El Al and Marriott Bonvoy
Hyatt Contributor BadgeMarriott Contributor Badge 2019 FlyerTalk Awards
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: SIN
Programs: TG*G, Mar LTBT, Hyatt Glb, AA PLT-LTG, LY, HH, IC, BA, DL, UA SLV
Posts: 10,861
Originally Posted by RCyyz View Post
Hope this helps. If anyone out there is truly an expert, please feel free to correct any mistakes I may have made!
So much great information for us politico buffs! Thanks!
yosithezet is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 14, 10:05 am
  #9878  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: SIN
Programs: QR Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 198
Originally Posted by Deltahater View Post
I missed that you had that letter.
I'm honestly surprised no one else received the same unsolicited email. Makes me wonder if sending it out 36h before my departure was by design and not coincidence.
james84 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 14, 10:07 am
  #9879  
Community Director
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Anywhere warm
Posts: 29,156
That was fascinating, RCyyz. Thank you for writing so clearly and bringing a much better understanding to the proceedings.
SanDiego1K is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 14, 10:27 am
  #9880  
Marriott Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: YUL
Programs: Occasional RTW club
Posts: 6,077
Originally Posted by RCyyz View Post
Hello all. Disclaimers first:

....

Hope this helps. If anyone out there is truly an expert, please feel free to correct any mistakes I may have made!
Reading stuff like this makes getting up in the morning worth it (and yes, I have a full time job, which means that yes, I am saying that getting up for a full-time job is NOT worth it).

Thank you for writing this. This is a VERY intriguing perspective.
Pseudo Nim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 14, 10:32 am
  #9881  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: At an airport-on a cruise ship
Programs: UA-1K, MM, Hilton-Diamond, Marriott-Platinum, SPG-Platinum Thnks to FT
Posts: 4,178
Awesome analysis

Thanks RCyyz.

I can see LX and council hoping that it can drag on forever.
cruisr is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 14, 10:36 am
  #9882  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,560
Originally Posted by lewende View Post
Thanks a lot for the insights, truly appreciate it.

Question: what's the repercussion if CTA finally decides not to grant Stays? I know LX will make a big noise about it, but other than that, what will happen next?
I would love to hear an answer to this question, because this morning the Agency denied Swiss' motion to stay 416/417, and ordered Swiss to compensate me by March 17 and fly the rest of the 7 over the next year! Not sure as of yet how this applies to other merged complaints. Tariff Rule 5F is also finally disallowed as of February 21st.

Here's a copy of the decision:

February 14, 2014 File No. M 4120-3/ 14-00940

BY E-MAIL: [email protected]

Swiss International Air Lines Ltd., doing business as Swiss
c/o Heather L. Treacy, Q.C.

Partner

Davis LLP

Suite 1000, Livingston Place West

250 2nd Street SW

Calgary, Alberta

T2P 0Cl

This refers to a motion filed by Swiss International Air Lines Ltd., doing business as Swiss
(Swiss) on February 11, 2014, requesting a stay of Decision No. 416-C-A-2013 and
paragraph 28 of Decision No. 417-C-A-2013.

Background

In Decision No. LET-C-A-123-2013, the Agency stayed Decision No. 416-C-A-2013 and
paragraph 28 of Decision No. 417-C-A-2013 until February 12, 2014. On February 11, 2014,
Swiss filed with the Agency a motion to extend the stay. Swiss relies on section 29 of the
Canadian Transportation Agency General Rules as Well as the Supreme Court decision in
RJR-MacDonald Inc v. Attorney General of Canada [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311 (RJR-MacDonald). In
this case, the Supreme Court of Canada set forth a three prong test which requires that: (1) there
be a serious question to be determined; (2) irreparable harm will result if the stay is not granted;
and (3) the balance of convenience must favour Swiss.

Swiss argues that irreparable harm will result to Swiss if the stay is not continued `as the
7 complainants could immediately seek to be transported on the same conditions and at the same
price as the ticket originally booked by them. If the petition to the Governor in Council is
granted, Swiss argues that it will not be in a position to recover as the complainants would have
already travelled.

Issue

Should the Agency grant the motion to extend the stay in Decision No. 416-C-A-2013 and
paragraph 28 of Decision No. 417-C-A-2013?

l. Serious question to be determined

RJR-MacDonald made it clear that Whether the first part of the test “...has been satisfied should
be determined by a motions judge on the basis of common sense and an extremely limited review
of the case on the merits...”. The Agency does not contest that there is a potentially serious
question t0 be determined.

2. Irreparable harm

RJR-MacDonald is clear, at page 341, that:

“Irreparable” refers to the nature of the harm suffered rather than its magnitude.
It is harm which either cannot be quantified in monetary terms or which cannot be
cured, usually because one party cannot collect damages from the other.
Examples of the former include instances Where one party Will be put out of
business by the court’s decision ...g Where one party Will suffer permanent market
loss or irrevocable damage to its business reputation (American Cyanamid,
supra); or Where a permanent loss of natural resources will be the result when a
challenged activity is not enjoined.... The fact that one party may be impecunious
does not automatically determine the application in favour of the other party Who
will not ultimately be able to collect` damages, although it may be a relevant
consideration...

The fact that Swiss might not be able to recover the costs of the tickets provided to the 7
complainants, in the event that the Governor in Council petition is granted, is relevant but not
determinative.

3. Balance of inconvenience

At this stage, RJR-MacDonald, at page 349 indicates that “... In addition to the damage each
party alleges it will suffer, the interest of the public must be taken into account. The effect a
decision on the application will have upon the public interest may be relied upon by either
party....” Swiss has not provided any argument in regards to the balance of inconvenience.

The Agency denies the motion to extend the stay for Decision No. 416-C-A-2013 and
paragraph 28 of Decision No. 417-C-A-2013.

In accordance With Decision No. 416-C-A-2013, the Agency disallows Tariff Rule 5(F) and,
pursuant to section 26 of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c. 10, as amended, directs
Swiss to remove Tariff Rule 5(F) in its entirety by February 21, 2014 and advise the Agency by
that same date if it intends to file a revised Tariff Rule 5(F). If Swiss opts to file a revised Tariff
Rule, it must do so by March 6, 2014 and the revised Tariff Rule must reflect, at a minimum, the
following:

1. the term “technical failure” is clearly and narrowly defined and specific examples are

provided;

2. the time period for ticket cancellation due to an erroneous fare must not exceed 24 hours

after Swiss becomes aware of the erroneous fare;

3. Swiss will exercise all reasonable efforts to ensure that fares it publishes are accurate and

available for sale; and,

4. Swiss will provide a refund for the cost of a cancelled ticket or provide alternate
transportation to the passenger at the lowest available discounted fare in that class, and
provide reasonable compensation to passengers Whose tickets have been cancelled due to
an erroneous fare, including compensation for expenses incurred due to ticket cancellation.

In accordance with Decision No. 417-C-A-2013, the Agency extends the deadline imposed on
Swiss to compensate Mr. Brewer to March 17, 2014. The Agency also extends the deadline
imposed on Swiss to transport the complainants to any date specified by each complainant by no
later than February 16, 2015.

If you have any questions regarding the foregoing, you may Contact [redacted][/email].

BY THE AGENCY:

(signed) (signed)

Sam Barone Geoffrey C. Hare
Member Member

Last edited by BrewerSEA; Feb 14, 14 at 10:50 am
BrewerSEA is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 14, 10:58 am
  #9883  
2019 FlyerTalk Awards
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: SAT
Programs: AA PLT, BA Gold, TK Gold, Hyatt Gold, Hilton Gold, Gold SPG, AS 75K, QR PLT
Posts: 5,759
.... nm

Last edited by Deltahater; Feb 14, 14 at 10:59 am Reason: too late to the party
Deltahater is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 14, 11:25 am
  #9884  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Body in Downtown YYZ, heart and mind elsewhere
Programs: UA 50K, refugee from AC E50K.
Posts: 4,925
Originally Posted by lewende View Post
Thanks a lot for the insights, truly appreciate it.

Question: what's the repercussion if CTA finally decides not to grant Stays? I know LX will make a big noise about it, but other than that, what will happen next?
Dunno. I'm not a lawyer! But the CTA is a Crown agency that operates under the auspices of the Governor-in-Council. So essentially, the CTA is a representative of Her Majesty the Queen. LX can make whatever noise they want but ultimately Her Majesty outranks them, at least in a Canadian judicial / legislative perspective.

Basically if Her Majesty chooses to ignore her own rules, there's nothing anyone can do about it other than stage a coup and cut off her head. I somehow doubt LX will succeed at that!

So if CTA does not grant a stay, I think LX will simply have to uphold whatever decision was made at the Federal Court.

Originally Posted by Deltahater View Post
Very insightful. Thank you very much.

So in essence, because an order-in-council is so special and rarely used, LX can attempt to drag this out for the next 50 years?
Yup.

Originally Posted by cruisr View Post
Thanks RCyyz.

I can see LX and council hoping that it can drag on forever.
Actually Council would not want to drag this out. As I said, the Swiss application for an Order-in-Council is a gross abuse of the executive function of Cabinet. Personally as a Canadian, I am enormously insulted that Swiss - a foreign entity - would deign to attempt something like this. While what they are doing is legal, it's certainly of questionable moral integrity and as I said, an abuse of the system.

So the Governor-in-Council most likely wants nothing at all to do with this. They probably wish LX would just go away. Behind the scenes, the Minister of Transport may in fact be directing the head of the CTA to figure out how to not grant a Stay. That's certainly what I would do if I was Minister of Transport!


Anyhow, glad my comments seem to have helped a bit!
RCyyz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 14, 11:29 am
  #9885  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto vicinity
Programs: UA 1K, AC MM E50, AA EXP, SPG P100, Marriott Plat, Fairmont Plat
Posts: 11,483
Well done RC!
margarita girl is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread